Olympus OM-D E-M1 - what lenses would you recommend?

m43 is a good prime platform, and there are lots to choose from.

I'd start with (for probably around 4kAUD):

• Lumix 12-32mm f3.5-5.6
• Leica 15mm f1.7
• Lumix 35-100mm f4-5.6
• Olympus m.Zuiko 300mm f4 + MC14 or if you're not comfortable with a long prime the m.Zuiko 100-400mm f5-6.3 or Leica 50-200mm f2.8-4 + TC14

--
Just birds
Flickr

LauraP said:

Hi All,

I'm changing from a Canon to Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III.

I am looking to start off buying lenses (I am thinking 3) with a budget of approx $4k AUD (excl body)

What 3 lenses would you recommend I purchase please?

Photography predominantly: Landscapes and Travel - sometimes animals / birds

I am leaning towards

• Olympus 7-14mm F2.8
• Olympus 12-100 f4.0
• Olympus 75-300 f4.8 - 6.7

thanks for your advice.

Click to expand...

My opinions :

Wait on the 7-14. It is one of the best lenses in the Oly range BUT even shooting 90% landscapes and city/indoor scenes I have to make a conscious effort to use it. I call it The Beast as it is so heavy (for mft)

MFT is all about reducing weight and size (for me), therefore I don't even think about the 12-100. Too big, heavy and f4. The 12-40 f2.8 is a better option with the plastic fantastic 40-150 (dirt cheap and amazing quality). OR the Pana Leica 12-60, which I have just aquired - absolutely love it. How often do you need 12-100 at the same time and when you do need the 100, I find it's far too short and I need 150 or more

Like others have mentioned better the Pana 100-300 or probably even better the new Oly 100-400, than the Oly 75-300. I have seen too many soft images (from others)

The elephant in the room is Pro lenses , are they worth it ? I am not convinced that if you use lenses within their limits that you are gaining any IQ with Pro lenses. What you are gaining in solidity of the lens, weight, weather sealing and faster lenses (a bit)

If you want to follow the light weight philosophy then have a look at the Oly 14-150 ii as your walk around. I am constantly amazed at the centre sharpness. So good that when I crop heavily for birds it shows great detail. Love this lens and if I could only choose one this would be it

Please look at my Flickr feed and you can see all the lenses I mentioned in action (as it were)

If you need a faster prime, my fave is the 25mm 1.8. Greta quality, very small and light and cheap

You could easily use it for macro with an extension tube or go for the 60mm Oly macro. Again a stunning lens

We all have our go to lenses (and cameras) but for me don't get drawn into the 'Pro' lens rabbit hole without checking IQ vs non 'Pro' and the WEIGHT

LauraP said:

Hi All,

I'm changing from a Canon to Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III.

I am looking to start off buying lenses (I am thinking 3) with a budget of approx $4k AUD (excl body)

What 3 lenses would you recommend I purchase please?

Photography predominantly: Landscapes and Travel - sometimes animals / birds

I am leaning towards

• Olympus 7-14mm F2.8
• Olympus 12-100 f4.0
• Olympus 75-300 f4.8 - 6.7

thanks for your advice.

Click to expand...

The one suggestion I would make is the 25mm f1.8

If you plan to photograph birds occasionally, the 100-400 would be better than the 75-300

The 75-300 is also great, and many folks here have made great images with it, provided one uses the same shooting technique as would be used for a hefty 600mm prime. The 100-400 would give the extra reach and it can take the 1.4TC also, so it becomes a lot more versatile.

The 12-100 with Dual IS is amazing for low light handheld shots.

+1 for suggestions above regarding the 14-150 II

The Oly 9-18 is also worth a consideration instead of the 7-14

Atho said:

Hi Laura,

Any particular reason for the change or is it the obvious one, the weight?

Careful with mixing pany and oly lenses as they work in opposite directions and it can get a bit confusing so I avoid panys.

I’ve been investigating a ‘ditch the gear’ set up so I’d recommend:

Oly 12-45mm f4

Oly 14-150mm f4-5.6

Oly 30mm f3.5 macro

This lot’ll weigh in at 667g not inc filters.

And if you want a fast lens and don’t mind manual then I’d highly recommend the imperfect 7artisans 35mm f1.2 mark I adding another 150g to your camera bag.

Check out David Thorpe on YouTube.

Click to expand...

I am new here (M 4/3). Seeing that several people here like the plastic fantastic 14-150, I checked it out. I didn't pay any attention to it before because well, how could a $99 lens be any good?

My point of reference is the Canon EF-S (crop sensor) 55-250, another plastic fantastic. My copy happens to be excellent but I want to sell my Canon crop sensor equipment and get a MFT telephoto zoom. If it really is any good, it would be a useful and very inexpensive part of the transition to M 4/3 while I decide what my long term needs are. I guess at that price, there is nothing to lose, so I think I am going to go for it.

PS I have been following David Thorpe for a while. I like his thoughtful comments. I guess he is part of the reason I am making this move.

2ndact scene1 said:

Atho said:

Hi Laura,

Any particular reason for the change or is it the obvious one, the weight?

Careful with mixing pany and oly lenses as they work in opposite directions and it can get a bit confusing so I avoid panys.

I’ve been investigating a ‘ditch the gear’ set up so I’d recommend:

Oly 12-45mm f4

Oly 14-150mm f4-5.6

Oly 30mm f3.5 macro

This lot’ll weigh in at 667g not inc filters.

And if you want a fast lens and don’t mind manual then I’d highly recommend the imperfect 7artisans 35mm f1.2 mark I adding another 150g to your camera bag.

Check out David Thorpe on YouTube.

Click to expand...

I am new here (M 4/3). Seeing that several people here like the plastic fantastic 14-150, I checked it out. I didn't pay any attention to it before because well, how could a $99 lens be any good?

My point of reference is the Canon EF-S (crop sensor) 55-250, another plastic fantastic. My copy happens to be excellent but I want to sell my Canon crop sensor equipment and get a MFT telephoto zoom. If it really is any good, it would be a useful and very inexpensive part of the transition to M 4/3 while I decide what my long term needs are. I guess at that price, there is nothing to lose, so I think I am going to go for it.

PS I have been following David Thorpe for a while. I like his thoughtful comments. I guess he is part of the reason I am making this move.

Click to expand...

You’re a bit muddled. The plastic fantastic is the 40150R not the 14150. The former is an absolute must have especially at $99. I’m doing a test elsewhere on midrange zooms and have come out in favour of the 14150 to my surprise against DT’s recommended PL 14140!

Lots of folk here recommend the heavy glass but for me the beauty of mft is that it was intended to be lighter than ft but almost immediately that was scuppered by the 40150 f2.8 which is 50mm shorter than the superb ft 50200 f2.8-3.5 and only 140 grammes lighter!

thankfully just before its demise Olympus brought out the fabulous 1245 f4 weighing only 254 grammes.

I was out today comparing the 14150 & 40150R and I also had the 1245 with me. All 3 lenses weighed in at 710 grammes; they all have the same size filter and one lens hood fits all of them!

Good luck with your purchases and welcome to mft!

Atho said:

2ndact scene1 said:

Atho said:

Hi Laura,

Any particular reason for the change or is it the obvious one, the weight?

Careful with mixing pany and oly lenses as they work in opposite directions and it can get a bit confusing so I avoid panys.

I’ve been investigating a ‘ditch the gear’ set up so I’d recommend:

Oly 12-45mm f4

Oly 14-150mm f4-5.6

Oly 30mm f3.5 macro

This lot’ll weigh in at 667g not inc filters.

And if you want a fast lens and don’t mind manual then I’d highly recommend the imperfect 7artisans 35mm f1.2 mark I adding another 150g to your camera bag.

Check out David Thorpe on YouTube.

Click to expand...

I am new here (M 4/3). Seeing that several people here like the plastic fantastic 14-150, I checked it out. I didn't pay any attention to it before because well, how could a $99 lens be any good?

My point of reference is the Canon EF-S (crop sensor) 55-250, another plastic fantastic. My copy happens to be excellent but I want to sell my Canon crop sensor equipment and get a MFT telephoto zoom. If it really is any good, it would be a useful and very inexpensive part of the transition to M 4/3 while I decide what my long term needs are. I guess at that price, there is nothing to lose, so I think I am going to go for it.

PS I have been following David Thorpe for a while. I like his thoughtful comments. I guess he is part of the reason I am making this move.

Click to expand...

You’re a bit muddled. The plastic fantastic is the 40150R not the 14150. The former is an absolute must have especially at $99. I’m doing a test elsewhere on midrange zooms and have come out in favour of the 14150 to my surprise against DT’s recommended PL 14140!

Lots of folk here recommend the heavy glass but for me the beauty of mft is that it was intended to be lighter than ft but almost immediately that was scuppered by the 40150 f2.8 which is 50mm shorter than the superb ft 50200 f2.8-3.5 and only 140 grammes lighter!

thankfully just before its demise Olympus brought out the fabulous 1245 f4 weighing only 254 grammes.

I was out today comparing the 14150 & 40150R and I also had the 1245 with me. All 3 lenses weighed in at 710 grammes; they all have the same size filter and one lens hood fits all of them!

Good luck with your purchases and welcome to mft!

Click to expand...

I'd very much like to see some shots of all 3 ... doesn't have to be a scientific identical shot type :-D. Any chance you could post or link ?

LauraP said:

Hi All,

I'm changing from a Canon to Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III.

I am looking to start off buying lenses (I am thinking 3) with a budget of approx $4k AUD (excl body)

What 3 lenses would you recommend I purchase please?

Photography predominantly: Landscapes and Travel - sometimes animals / birds

I am leaning towards

• Olympus 7-14mm F2.8
• Olympus 12-100 f4.0
• Olympus 75-300 f4.8 - 6.7

thanks for your advice.

Click to expand...

I would personally get the Olympus 12-100 f4.0 and a small prime lens for indoor use (maybe the Olympus 25mm f1.8), and evaluate your additional needs after using that kit for a bit.

But it depends on what your needs are. If you need to use a zoom indoors, the f2.8 zooms will be better.

Thanks Atho

It is predominately weight and convenience. I did a shoot on the weekend at a bird rescue place. I was using my 150-600mm on my canon and it’s so big and unwieldily. I carried two bags to fit two bodies and 3 lenses.

I love travel too and the size and weight is just not ideal.

Friends have OM-D and I love their images so keen to change over. Plus some of the features the Oly has are amazing.

Thanks Bluevelvet

Good analysis thank you I do mostly shoot outside

I do landscape and wanted to replace my 16-35 f2.8 canon lens with similar. Suggestions from yourself and similar has me leaning towards the panny 8-18mm. The f2.8 is good for Astro. The lack of ability to use filters on the oly 7-14mm had me questioning the choice so the change ticks more boxes.

Based on your feedback I’ll rethink the 75-300. It’s only for the rare zoom photos.



thanks

LauraP said:

Thanks Atho

It is predominately weight and convenience. I did a shoot on the weekend at a bird rescue place. I was using my 150-600mm on my canon and it’s so big and unwieldily. I carried two bags to fit two bodies and 3 lenses.

I love travel too and the size and weight is just not ideal.

Friends have OM-D and I love their images so keen to change over. Plus some of the features the Oly has are amazing.

Click to expand...

The beauty of m43, be it Olympus or Panasonic, is the availability of a plethora of different bodies and lenses of all sizes.

I have an E-M1 III that gets used most often with my longer/faster lenses for wildlife and sports. But if I'm off around town or planning a trip to the museum or botanical garden, I'll opt for a smaller body and perhaps the lightweight 12-45 Pro. For a throw in the back seat of the car all around super light kit the E-M10 III with 14-42 pancake and the ridiculously cheap 40-150 "plastic fantastic" all fit in a small fanny pack.

softmarmotte said:

Atho said:

2ndact scene1 said:

I am new here (M 4/3). Seeing that several people here like the plastic fantastic 14-150, I checked it out. I didn't pay any attention to it before because well, how could a $99 lens be any good?

Click to expand...

The plastic fantastic is the 40150R not the 14150. The former is an absolute must have especially at $99.

Click to expand...

I'd very much like to see some shots of all 3 ... doesn't have to be a scientific identical shot type :-D. Any chance you could post or link ?

Click to expand...

I didn't have the Oly 40-150 f/4-5.6 for long. I acquired the Panasonic 45-150 as part of a bundle purchase and kept that lens since I shoot Panasonic bodies. I thought the IQ on the Pana was a bit better, build was better, and it had OIS. But the Oly is definitely worth $99, and it's very light.

FWIW, here are a few full-resolution shots with the Oly from around 9 years ago. All are f/5.6, first is 40mm, rest are 150mm. Shot with GF1 or GX1.



















--
Brent

brentbrent said:

softmarmotte said:

Atho said:

2ndact scene1 said:

I am new here (M 4/3). Seeing that several people here like the plastic fantastic 14-150, I checked it out. I didn't pay any attention to it before because well, how could a $99 lens be any good?

Click to expand...

The plastic fantastic is the 40150R not the 14150. The former is an absolute must have especially at $99.

Click to expand...

I'd very much like to see some shots of all 3 ... doesn't have to be a scientific identical shot type :-D. Any chance you could post or link ?

Click to expand...

I didn't have the Oly 40-150 f/4-5.6 for long. I acquired the Panasonic 45-150 as part of a bundle purchase and kept that lens since I shoot Panasonic bodies. I thought the IQ on the Pana was a bit better, build was better, and it had OIS. But the Oly is definitely worth $99, and it's very light.

FWIW, here are a few full-resolution shots with the Oly from around 9 years ago. All are f/5.6, first is 40mm, rest are 150mm. Shot with GF1 or GX1.

Click to expand...

These look pretty good to me! I don't use telephoto zooms very often, so this should be a good fit for me.

softmarmotte said:

LauraP said:

Hi All,

I'm changing from a Canon to Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III.

I am looking to start off buying lenses (I am thinking 3) with a budget of approx $4k AUD (excl body)

What 3 lenses would you recommend I purchase please?

Photography predominantly: Landscapes and Travel - sometimes animals / birds

I am leaning towards

• Olympus 7-14mm F2.8
• Olympus 12-100 f4.0
• Olympus 75-300 f4.8 - 6.7

thanks for your advice.

Click to expand...

My opinions :

Wait on the 7-14. It is one of the best lenses in the Oly range BUT even shooting 90% landscapes and city/indoor scenes I have to make a conscious effort to use it. I call it The Beast as it is so heavy (for mft)

Click to expand...

I tend to agree- so, the 8mm FE for mountains.

softmarmotte said:

MFT is all about reducing weight and size (for me), therefore I don't even think about the 12-100. Too big, heavy and f4. The 12-40 f2.8 is a better option with the plastic fantastic 40-150 (dirt cheap and amazing quality). OR the Pana Leica 12-60, which I have just aquired - absolutely love it. How often do you need 12-100 at the same time and when you do need the 100, I find it's far too short and I need 150 or more

Like others have mentioned better the Pana 100-300 or probably even better the new Oly 100-400, than the Oly 75-300. I have seen too many soft images (from others)

Click to expand...

I found both about the same and so did others. Some time back, before the much higher quality long telephoto m4/3 lenses, most folks in DPR threads found both about the same. The advantage the 100-300 has is strictly in dual stabilization.

softmarmotte said:

The elephant in the room is Pro lenses , are they worth it ? I am not convinced that if you use lenses within their limits that you are gaining any IQ with Pro lenses. What you are gaining in solidity of the lens, weight, weather sealing and faster lenses (a bit)

Click to expand...

Tests at Optical Limits and Lenstips, however, show about a 15-20% IQ difference between the Pro and consumer grade lenses. The only consumer grade lenses I have are the 60mm macro and 75-300. Neither are as good as the 12-40, 35-100, or especially the 300. With the 300 I can move my nose to about 8-1/2" from the screen before the image begins to break down. That is about 15% closer than with the aforementioned landscape Pro's. It is outrageously sharp, moreso than the 100-400 (online evaluations), but presumably similar to the new 150-400.


This is just a jpg file.

softmarmotte said:

If you want to follow the light weight philosophy then have a look at the Oly 14-150 ii as your walk around. I am constantly amazed at the centre sharpness. So good that when I crop heavily for birds it shows great detail. Love this lens and if I could only choose one this would be it

Please look at my Flickr feed and you can see all the lenses I mentioned in action (as it were)

If you need a faster prime, my fave is the 25mm 1.8. Greta quality, very small and light and cheap

You could easily use it for macro with an extension tube or go for the 60mm Oly macro. Again a stunning lens

Click to expand...

I do like the 60 for macro.

softmarmotte said:

We all have our go to lenses (and cameras) but for me don't get drawn into the 'Pro' lens rabbit hole without checking IQ vs non 'Pro' and the WEIGHT

Click to expand...

Gary from Seattle said:

softmarmotte said:

LauraP said:

Hi All,

I'm changing from a Canon to Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III.

I am looking to start off buying lenses (I am thinking 3) with a budget of approx $4k AUD (excl body)

What 3 lenses would you recommend I purchase please?

Photography predominantly: Landscapes and Travel - sometimes animals / birds

I am leaning towards

• Olympus 7-14mm F2.8
• Olympus 12-100 f4.0
• Olympus 75-300 f4.8 - 6.7

thanks for your advice.

Click to expand...

My opinions :

Wait on the 7-14. It is one of the best lenses in the Oly range BUT even shooting 90% landscapes and city/indoor scenes I have to make a conscious effort to use it. I call it The Beast as it is so heavy (for mft)

Click to expand...

I tend to agree- so, the 8mm FE for mountains.

Gary from Seattle said:

MFT is all about reducing weight and size (for me), therefore I don't even think about the 12-100. Too big, heavy and f4. The 12-40 f2.8 is a better option with the plastic fantastic 40-150 (dirt cheap and amazing quality). OR the Pana Leica 12-60, which I have just aquired - absolutely love it. How often do you need 12-100 at the same time and when you do need the 100, I find it's far too short and I need 150 or more

Like others have mentioned better the Pana 100-300 or probably even better the new Oly 100-400, than the Oly 75-300. I have seen too many soft images (from others)

Click to expand...

I found both about the same and so did others. Some time back, before the much higher quality long telephoto m4/3 lenses, most folks in DPR threads found both about the same. The advantage the 100-300 has is strictly in dual stabilization.

Gary from Seattle said:

The elephant in the room is Pro lenses , are they worth it ? I am not convinced that if you use lenses within their limits that you are gaining any IQ with Pro lenses. What you are gaining in solidity of the lens, weight, weather sealing and faster lenses (a bit)

Click to expand...

Tests at Optical Limits and Lenstips, however, show about a 15-20% IQ difference between the Pro and consumer grade lenses. The only consumer grade lenses I have are the 60mm macro and 75-300. Neither are as good as the 12-40, 35-100, or especially the 300. With the 300 I can move my nose to about 8-1/2" from the screen before the image begins to break down. That is about 15% closer than with the aforementioned landscape Pro's. It is outrageously sharp, moreso than the 100-400 (online evaluations), but presumably similar to the new 150-400.


This is just a jpg file.

Gary from Seattle said:

If you want to follow the light weight philosophy then have a look at the Oly 14-150 ii as your walk around. I am constantly amazed at the centre sharpness. So good that when I crop heavily for birds it shows great detail. Love this lens and if I could only choose one this would be it

Please look at my Flickr feed and you can see all the lenses I mentioned in action (as it were)

If you need a faster prime, my fave is the 25mm 1.8. Greta quality, very small and light and cheap

You could easily use it for macro with an extension tube or go for the 60mm Oly macro. Again a stunning lens

Click to expand...

I do like the 60 for macro.

Gary from Seattle said:

We all have our go to lenses (and cameras) but for me don't get drawn into the 'Pro' lens rabbit hole without checking IQ vs non 'Pro' and the WEIGHT

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Gary I am sure you are correct re lenstip etc and their testing. In reality and either on my 4k screen or printed out...no difference. Not saying you are wrong to want the 'Pro' gear, just for me double the weight and more than double the money is not worth it

--
anyone is welcome to do anything they want with my images except sell them for profit

Hi Laura

My ultra wide, ultra light lens, don’t laugh, is the Olympus 9mm f8 body cap lens. It is a ridiculous piece of kit.

ephotozine gives it a 4/5 rating (the same as the 1245 f4). 30 grammes. In the uk it costs £85. I carry mine everywhere.

As far as astrophotography is concerned I can’t recommend the 1245 enough as it is the world’s widest macro and as you know astro & macro are both flat field specialisms.

No surprise then that it was released at the same time as the EM1 III (with starry skies AF) or that it is a camera that I am looking at intently.

Welcome to the format, the lenses you have chosen are all good , the 7-14 and 12-100 are fairly outstanding with their constant apertures. The 75-300 can give results too but it’s a bit slow at the longer end. That might not matter if you are shooting in brighter light.
I sold my 75-300 and bought the later 100-400. While it is more expensive it performs better than my copy of the 75-300 and I appreciate the weather sealing for the vagaries of UK weather.
I think your choice of the EM1 mkiii a good one . I hope you enjoy your new gear.

Hi Laura, welcome to the MFT world.. of your three choices the 12-100 is probably the easiest recommend. F4 in MFT is the sweet spot and the extra stabilization of that lens makes it one of Olympus's best. To stay in your budget are you buying used or all new??

Because you said you might want to shoot birds I think maybe consider the 40-150 f2.8 pro because you could always add a 2x teleconverter down the road. That would cover your telephoto length and give you great image quality.

For the 12-40 mm (24-80) range you could try the newer 12-45 f4 and save you some money for the teleconverter. If you go used I would then say 12-100 f4 or the 12-40 f2.8 are easy pics. Being that this focal range will most likely be your go to zoom ask yourself what you want the most out of a lens in this category

Ok on the wide end is where I would say wait until after February and see if there is a new wide angle zoom on the Olympus roadmap. If there is a new f4 wide zoom on route I would hold out and see..

Weird recommends for wide is the Olympus f1.8 fisheye. You can defish it in camera and having a wide 8mm (16mm equivalent) lens at f1.8 with autofocus can be fun.. if you find it used it might be a great placeholder

You are most likely shooting landscapes wide so I would also say the Laowa 7.5mm f/2 is supposed to be really sharp.

Other lenses worth considering

All the pro primes are amazing . My favourite lens in the system is the 45 f1.2 (would blow up your budget though) . These lenses can you give the shallow depth of field and low light that everyone claims MFT can't achieve

2ndact scene1 said:

brentbrent said:

softmarmotte said:

Atho said:

2ndact scene1 said:

I am new here (M 4/3). Seeing that several people here like the plastic fantastic 14-150, I checked it out. I didn't pay any attention to it before because well, how could a $99 lens be any good?

Click to expand...

The plastic fantastic is the 40150R not the 14150. The former is an absolute must have especially at $99.

Click to expand...

I'd very much like to see some shots of all 3 ... doesn't have to be a scientific identical shot type :-D. Any chance you could post or link ?

Click to expand...

I didn't have the Oly 40-150 f/4-5.6 for long. I acquired the Panasonic 45-150 as part of a bundle purchase and kept that lens since I shoot Panasonic bodies. I thought the IQ on the Pana was a bit better, build was better, and it had OIS. But the Oly is definitely worth $99, and it's very light.

FWIW, here are a few full-resolution shots with the Oly from around 9 years ago. All are f/5.6, first is 40mm, rest are 150mm. Shot with GF1 or GX1.

Click to expand...

These look pretty good to me! I don't use telephoto zooms very often, so this should be a good fit for me.

Click to expand...

It's a very competent lens for something so small and inexpensive. I take mine when space and weight are the top concern, for other times its 40-150 Pro cousin is my preference as a better lens every conceivable way. I have no qualms about owning both because each has its discrete mission.

Despite the FL overlap I sometimes travel with the 12-100 and 40-150 Pro. They handily share filter size and the teleconverters add reach to the tele zoom.

The 14-150 is mentioned, too. I do not have but it seems rather good and adds the benefit of weather sealing.

Cheers,

Rick

--
Equivalence and diffraction-free since 2009.
You can be too; ask about our 12-step program.

Since several here have mentioned the "plastic fantastic" Oly 40-150 lens, I'll jump in and say the 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 EZ "kit" lens seems pretty decent to this amateur. I got one for an additional $100 when I bought an E-M5.2 three years ago, so it was a no-brainer. I later added the 40-150 for $99. These three items were my entry into IL digital photography, and worked very well on a trip to Greece and Italy.

If you are looking for lightweight zooms to haul around on a trip or a hike, then it's hard to beat the above lenses. Of course they are aperture-challenged, so aren't great in low light, but your E-M1's fantastic IBIS can help there.

All that said, I started eying the faster, wider angle, constant aperture 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro lens, and finally bought one for a killer price. It has been my go-to lens since then, but it's much heavier than the little 14-42 EZ. However, weight/balance is better with my "new to me" E-M1.2. In my quest for faster lenses, I'm also looking a the Oly 45mm f/1.8, or possibly the Sigma 56mm f/1.4.

Here's a 14-42 kit lens photo of a palace ceiling in fairly low light:


Party on Garth!